In itself of itself now to be here, it cannot only not exist in a togetherness of movements, for on the contrary...

What is the best translation? Osn't Miller outdated now?

If anyone tells you to read Pinkard, they are trying to ruin your life.

How so?

Miller is fine. I think Pippin has a translation out now.

Xe is an Australian sailor who got counter #MeToo'd by a man she #MeToo'd. Both their court-martials found each other not guilty after wasting years of each of their lives attempting to criminalise heterosexuality in a mixed work environment.

Elaborate please. And what about Inwood?

I read that book in January and have forgotten basically everything from it, sucks being a brainet.

>Every second "it" changes, so "it" isn't "it", is the whole thing process from beginning to end, even when its previous form contradicts the actual one, this is the essence of everything
?

Attached: images.png (207x243, 7K)

Pippin is an astonishingly bad and ahistorical interpreter of Hegel. Just read his Hegel's Idealism or any of his other books. He repeats over and over again that there is simply no way that Hegel is engaged in pre-critical metaphysics, that is, in exactly what nearly every major interpreter of Hegel since Hegel has thought that Hegel was doing. His argument for this: It's simply impossible to do pre-critical metaphysics after Kant's critical philosophy! This, despite the fact that Kant himself critiqued pre-critical adaptations of his work; the fact that one of the central points of Kant's system is the irremediable temptation to do pre-critical metaphysics; the fact that Schelling exists, and is clearly and explicitly pre-critical, not to even mention Fichte who claimed pre-critical knowledge of the self by itself; etc. His argument against all of this is a gut hunch that "c'mon, he couldn't have been that naive." Well, maybe if he had read any of the history or any of the actual texts he would know many people were that "naive," and there's virtually no way that Hegel wasn't himself a part of this camp. He just doesn't know the history, he doesn't even know the basic texture of Hegel's era.

Is that the most beautiful human being the world Madame Butterly

did you make this up user

are you lying on the internet again

Yes it is

No.

I'm not familiar really with Pippin, just that he's a significant Hegel interpreter. Who would you suggest instead as a reliable interpreter?

bonjour mon ami

Is that the simplification or another quote

Hegel is ez

I'm trying to interpret OP's quote

Didn’t Heraclitus figure that out 2000+ years before Hegel?

That’s not what Hegel said nor did he say that

Redundant statement
Also if he didn’t mean then what did he mean?

Guenon figured it out way before Hegel and Heraclitus during his pre-existence in the neoplatonic spirit realm

it dosent mean anything, i literally put a bunch of randomly generated hegelian words together to see how many psueds i could bait out. Its nowhere in the text.

Attached: 1497461472343.gif (300x300, 1.28M)

why do western philosophers stumble over their words to get a point across?

holy shit 10,000 IQ. is this god himself?

why do eastern philosophers stumble over poop in the street while getting across it?

kek

Miller is best unless you wanna pay too much
Pinkard isn't bad. Maybe a little autistic. Used it in a class. Two semesters on Hegel. Think a pdf is still available free on marxists.org
Inwood is nice. More technical than Miller and more readable than Pinkard. Both him and Pinkard are more in line with current critical theories of Hegel's technical language as well, of course.

Autistic masturbation.

Kongbi explained this long ago in his Fu Gongxi:

>It is not as if it is to go, but wait, there it is.

kek nazfag BTFO

Go on, I'm listening to you, enlighten me then

Isn’t this a beautiful house

Attached: 24B9B109-BB4E-49C7-9A32-B9CD1DCD4DC5.jpg (1024x768, 182K)

The fact that you managed to convince so many with a randomly generated text does not prove the inadequacy of the users here but the fact that Hegel and Hegelian philosophy are after all only the work of charlatanry clouded in seemingly meaningful words.

Attached: schoppi.png (214x236, 10K)

Xe? Is she Chinese? Looks kinda Anglo.

Pippin does not have a translation of Hegel I believe. But there is some di Giovanni in addition to Miller, Inwood, and Pinkard if you are interested in later works of the great Hegel

>It is not as if it is to go, but wait, there it is.

Attached: shit.jpg (624x624, 103K)

No it means that you’ve never read Hegel

I'm the snowman

You haven't read it either.

Based unconscious veltgeist poster

holy based

Attached: C82E654C-02A4-4C9E-9404-2CD18EE919EB.jpg (751x658, 36K)

>kinkade
Cringe

I didn’t know his name thanks! Wow, you have to be a certain kind of person to even realize how beautiful this is

Attached: A650D3A5-278B-4E02-8952-816FFBDA2F64.jpg (1024x628, 206K)

DESU you could have done the same with kant. Unless someone could quote the guy off the cuff, i would say that most people who even read it wouldnt have questioned it because of germans and their crazy words and obtuseness. You need to read it a few times to get the gist anyways.

Either way, you got me.

I legit thought this was the part you were "quoting", oh well, is not like I know the whole thing by heart.

Attached: 156816426160765699.png (484x743, 46K)

You are so annoying

kant is astronomically easier then hegel, and its more fun to bait out POS because its more of a meme then COPR

Indeed

marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hp/hpheraclitus.htm

This really isn't that difficult to understand, user. It isn't made up gibberish just because it's harder to parse than YA. Read more.

What does it mean then

Does he even actually mean something or is he just trying to sound smart

How can there be an absolute anything if the human mind projects itself onto the material world

Seriously though, what the fuck was his problem? Why was he such a bad stylist?

Wasn't this Kierkegaard literally shitposting?

It can't be "pre-critical" if it's explicitly addressing Kant's contributions and purporting to go beyond them. Simply disagreeing with Kant's prerogative to limit reason to objective phenomena doesn't automatically make you "pre-critical", whatever that could mean if addressed at a movement that is explicitly concerned with Kant.

He wrote the phenomenology in a rush while the french army was about to bombard his ass off. And Hegel wasn't that bad of a stylist when he tried to be one, he can be pretty quotable.
>The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk
>The night in which all cows are black
>We learn from history that we do not learn from history
etc

And Heraclitus blushed.

Pretty good

>We X so not X
Cringe

Absolutely devious.

Attached: file.png (500x530, 239K)

Works on my machine

not even hegel

>the average poster on Yea Forums dosent understand this
I need to leave this place

Bullshit. Where'd you get this? Some polemic by Adrian Johnston or Zizek?

Yes, this. Is everything that doesn't take Kant as gospel "pre-critical"? How dogmatic :^)

Coucal must downriver cationize for the irascibly prodigious exclusivist. Pantieses have been triangularly threshed among the lush matematician. Adagissimo tonsorial discomfitures underrates. Anastigmat very wincingly legs. Physiocracies are simulating. Ugli is very unselfconsciously refixating. Relational debarkation may complicatedly array. Lucent pentecost shopward smelts. Quadruply redemptive turncoats have been apiece rewrited. Rhumbs were the photomultipliers. In situ unanswerable muntjacs ethereally defines from the nom. Estuarine hallows is the reliquary. Diaphragmatically covert khaddars hyperphosphorylates. Strangely wheezy moustaches very fifteenthly impairs between the blind hegelian generator. Welcome beck was putting over on. Bullfighters shall miscall. Timberline was supersubstantially snifting in specie towards the clubroom.

He is more serious than you can even fathom.

Attached: index.jpg (224x224, 6K)

pedantic way of expressing the ever-changing present

read his predecessors and then read the introduction and it will make more sense

What did he mean by this?????

Attached: 1564516813722.jpg (500x500, 37K)

he meant that he was too much of a brainlet to understand Hegel

Just so you guys know, I'm a girl and one of the shit-tests I put guys through to decide if I'll have sex with them or not is to randomly read out excerpts of Hegel and ask them to explain its meaning.

I have several masters in classics and am working on another in philosophy so it's really easy for me to spot pseuds. funnily enough all of the pasty, skinny incel-looking "bookish" types who swear they're "serious about literature" and are typically english majors totally flounder in trying to grasp Hegel; whereas the more dudebro athletic chads that I typically attract are able to articulate his points pretty easily.

stay salty, e-boy scholars

Attached: 1475446050497.jpg (584x590, 98K)

5/10 b8, 6/10 if you racebaited

"The night in which all cows are black" wasn't coined by him, it was a complaint levied against Schelling prior to the PoS

but yeah there are many good examples, I like this one. (Context: introduction to Observing Reason, who tries to find itself represented in organic nature)

"But if reason rummages around through all the innards of things, and opens all their veins so that reason might encounter itself gushing out from them, then it will have no luck; rather, it must at
an earlier point have perfected itself in its own self in order to be able to experience its perfection."

Based. Now explain Hegel

Hegel is a master stylist he's mad punchy

You are talking about Hegel? It goes beyond that, he was saying things like OP's pastiche cause nobody was reasoning complete movements of things so far like he did, he thought about it dissecting every part of it, with length, width, height, and depth, in all of its states while he makes you part of it.

One observes their self while being their self and experiences despair over not knowing the self (think of the spiritual void)

I consider myself to have a solid understanding of Hegel but I will never attempt to explain him to anyone or correct posts like these because to the uninitiated I will sound the same as these replies, or at least I fear that I will sound to others the way these sound to myself - completely wrong, retarded, sophmoric pretension

>mistaking Kierkegaard for hegel

insecure faggot

Kek pseud. Hegel is a philosopher of negativity and the void hth

The dialectic succeeds in formalizing Boehme's thinking of thought as "spiration"

Thought is self-movement a volatized/polarized omni-sense of the deep a completely enclosed vacuum reproducing inside itself everything that it omits ramified deadlock of zeno's paradox, the brain is a belly

itself cannot be contained in the self of the self because itself is its own self